the important point is what i pointed out to gooner. Seeing Freeman's history at Bolton, you gotta have some thick blinders to take the walsh/sky version of events at face value. That is the version in which (following Peters) Freeman quizzes Leinders on doping, the latter assures the former he has a clean history, and the former goes on to recommend the latter to brailsford. Mkay.To be sure, it's heartwarming to see guys like you and gooner buy into that.

De Jongh vouched for him. Brailsford said Leinders lied out through his teeth. There's definitely a cloud over it. Read again, Brailsford is more at fault for this.

Plus, the guy has been ditched and the success has carried on. I like to know how and that's of more interest to me. I have strong doubts that Leinders was any mastermind here. I think it's a more on the side thing going on.

gooner wrote:De Jongh vouched for him. Brailsford said Leinders lied out through his teeth. There's definitely a cloud over it. Read again, Brailsford is more at fault for this.

Plus, the guy has been ditched and the success has carried on. I like to know how and that's of more interest to me. I have strong doubts that Leinders was any mastermind here. I think it's a more on the side thing going on.

why would Leinders have had to lie?
you actually think that in the interview they insisted on him having a 100% clean history? from what planet must Team Sky have been to seriously believe something like that?

what reasons (other than thick blinders) do you have to take braislford's version of events seriously?

the important point is what i pointed out to gooner. Seeing Freeman's linkedin profile, you gotta have some thick blinders to take the walsh/sky version of events at face value. That is the version in which (following Peters) Freeman quizzes Leinders on doping, the latter assures the former he has a clean history, and the former goes on to recommend the latter to brailsford, convinced as he is that the latter indeed has a clean history. Mkay.[color="RoyalBlue"]To be sure, it's heartwarming to see guys like you and gooner buy into that.[/color]

Another ad hominen - nice, I never once said anything about it, however you can assist in taking my blinders off.

So, can you point out where in the ST article it says that Freeman interviewed or quizzed Leinders on doping.

sniper wrote:why would Leinders have had to lie? you actually think that in the interview they insisted on him having a 100% clean history? from what planet must Team Sky have been to seriously believe something like that?

what reasons (other than thick blinders) do you have to take braislford's version of events seriously?

Sniper, the guy has been moved on. He has been talked about endlessly. Who do you think is running the programme now? The success has carried on even more after he left. Remember Freeman was at Sky from the start in 2010 when there was little success.

gooner wrote:Sniper, the guy has been moved on. He has been talked about endlessly. Who do you think is running the programme now? The success has carried on even more after he left. Remember Freeman was at Sky from the start in 2010 when there was little success.

that's not the issue.
i'm sitting here flabbergasted at the fact that you are actually considering and willing to take the sky/walsh version at face value.
flabbergasted.

sniper wrote:that's not the issue. i'm sitting here flabbergasted at the fact that you are actually considering and willing to take the sky/walsh version at face value. flabbergasted.

But what do you actually want to say? You start a new thread about Freeman, you add 0 new information and at the end it turns again about sky and walsh. Why did you start thread about Freeman? What kind of new information you have contributed here?

Von Mises wrote:But what do you actually want to say? You start a new thread about Freeman, you add 0 new information and at the end it turns again about sky and walsh. Why did you start thread about Freeman? What kind of new information you have contributed here?

do posters open threads just to contribute knowledge? what about asking for/receiving knowledge?

wanted to see if others knew more on freeman or his time at bolton. if not, cool.

sniper wrote:do posters open threads just to contribute knowledge? what about asking for/receiving knowledge?

wanted to see if others knew more on freeman or his time at bolton. if not, cool.

So basically you admit that you know zilch, but are still so sure to make a conclusion "and of course I think Bolton were on a program whilst Freeman was there". And I do not get how from Freemans linkedin profile you can get "Seeing Freeman's linkedin profile, you gotta have some thick blinders to take the walsh/sky version of events at face value." I just do not get it, what logic is behind this connection.

sniper wrote:sky fanbase have assured me this guy is a straight ace.that.s all i needed to hear.

Another ad hominen - you're on a roll.

I am certainly not a Sky fan, but i do like some facts or information.

You threw up a thread with a "what else do we have on this guy" when you started with nothing. Despite that you asked people to take their blinkers off when you made a comment about Freeman that was untrue.

And then when that is pointed out you attempt to bait the "sky fanbase" with a strawman?